An Inconvenient Scientist

[Ddrak]

What time frame did you look at?

The whole series, but specifically at the later part seeing that's what we were asked to do.

troposphere.png

[Embar Angylwrath]

Graphs can be such deceiving things...

Tell me what the average temp is at the end of the period, compared to the beginning point.

[Ddrak]

Tell me what the average temp is at the end of the period, compared to the beginning point.

Umm... you're not serious, are you?

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Sure I am, because that's the parlance of global warming talk. The average temperature of the planet continues to rise, or so the saying goes. Although picking an arbitrary point games the system. I should ask, is the average temp of those ten years higher or lower than the previous ten years. How about that question?

[Ddrak]

The only valid question about whether something is trending upwards is whether there's an upward trend. Cherrypicking bands of time, points in time, whatever is simply not statistically valid.

To answer though, the average of 1988-1998 was 0.02 degrees; with 1998-2008 as 0.21 degrees. Despite it showing a rise, it's still not particularly valid methodology given the big-ass el-nino sitting in the middle there.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Dd.. a trend implies change over time. The trend now seems to be reversing. Twenty years of data is a substantial amount of data, considering it reflects nearly 10% of the total timeframe that was supposed to have driven global warming (post industrial, about the mid 1800's to present)

[Klast Brell]

Sure it's trending down right now. If you look at the graph you can see cycles lasting 5 or 6 years. It's currently in the down portion of the cycle. But to take such a narrow view of it is no different that claiming that the sun will never rise because it's nighttime.

[Embar Angylwrath]

It's been trending down steadily for the last 20 years, Klast.

[Kulaf]

It's been trending down steadily for the last 20 years, Klast.

If you can look at the graph of the two satalite data sets in the post I made......and the graph that Dd posted and say that then I have only one response.

Your head at this point is so severly impacted in your own ass that extraction seems impossible. So I will let you dwell in fantasy land and exit this thread.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Good 'ol Kulaf, a true zealot.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=419_1179091346

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb9_1179092349

You can watch the entire 5 part series if you like, if you can open your eyes ad ears.

[Kulaf]

Embar you do realize that the man who's data you've been spouting about admits in the video that the temperature of the troposhpere is rising.......right? You did watch your own cited source......right?

I really loved the part where they were ripping on climate models.....yet the geologist can look in the camera and without blinking say it would take 2000 years for Antarctica to melt. Gee I wonder what he's basing that on?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Did you pay attention to the context at all? The jist of it is that IF all the hoopla about CO2 were true, temps would be rising much more than they are, and the temp rise currently observed is well within the parameters of normal climate fluctuation.

And the question about the melting of Antarctica is a pretty easy one, if you know a couple of things like the energy it takes to turn a given mass of ice into water, and the total mass of ice in Antartica. It then becomes a shrinking mass calculus equation (since only the ice in contact with warmer air will melt).

And you probably stuck your fingers in your ears, sang la-la-la-la when the scientists were talking about how much difference there was with taking surface temp readings (which aren't global and tend to be near cities), and the independent weather balloon and satellite temp readings, both indicating a much lower rate of temp change.

And the finer points of making policy on flawed mathematical climate models was obviously lost on you as well.

Have some more Kool-Aid.

[Kulaf]

Nice dodge......but you said his data showed that not only was the temperature of the troposhphere not increasing.....it was:

trending down steadily for the last 20 years, Klast.

Be a man and admit you were full of shit. The man in charge of the project said the temperature of the troposhpere is INCREASING!

And the question about the melting of Antarctica is a pretty easy one, if you know a couple of things like the energy it takes to turn a given mass of ice into water, and the total mass of ice in Antartica. It then becomes a shrinking mass calculus equation (since only the ice in contact with warmer air will melt).

Really? And just where is the melt runoff going? It is somehow mysticly transforming to vapor as the ice melts? What about the ice that contacts the warmer runoff......and then calculating the increasing runoff.......and then the swiss cheese effect it has on the glaciers. Suddenly your little calculus model doesn't sound like you are operating from a "perfect understanding of the forces involved."

[Kulaf]

And the finer points of making policy on flawed mathematical climate models was obviously lost on you as well.

Gonna deal with this one seperatly. Ok let's for the sake of arguement assume that all climate models are flawed. There.....done. We have an incomplete understanding of how the earth reacts to what we are doing. So we look at observational data to back up modeled simulations. So here Embar let me ask you this and you can go find some data to back you up.

1) Can you find a single climate model from a credible source that contradicts the currently accepted climate models? I.e. can you find a single climate model that says that global warming is not occuring?

2) What observational data can you present from credible sources that would support your contentions.

Because quite honestly.......we have shot down every piece of "data" you have ever presented. And while we may not have a complete understanding of climate enough to make predictions......that ones that we do all show the same "trend".......so if you want to buck the models......then present something better.

Once thing you have never expounded on Embar is......what are you afraid of? Because you keep harping on that the US might be making bad economic decesions based on imcomplete understanding.......when we do that every single day. The FDA approves drugs that they do not have a complete understadning of.......we enter into economic treaties that we do not have a complete understanding of. The FED makes decesions based on an incomplete understanding of the economy.

So what monster is hiding under the climatological bed that has you all in a tizzy?

[Partha]

The line of thinking is: "The Earth is ours to do with as we please." Admitting responsibility means taking corrective action, which means the entire above premise is wrong, and people will never admit that.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Nope.. the line of thinking is more like "Don't make radical changes to policy which exacerbate other issues (read: food shortage) based on uncertain predictions and untested science"

[Harlowe]

To an extent I agree Embar, I don't think radical changes without exploring the implications of those changes is responsible - however ignoring red flags and trying every which way to excuse it all away doesn't seem responsible either. It's like playing "partison climate politics".

I think there is a happy medium between "the sky is falling" and "head in the sand".

[Embar Angylwrath]

Sure there is, and I agree. The way to respond to a bunch of maybe-ifs, and to address this particular issue, is to encourage industry to develop technology which accelerates the move away from carbon-based fuels. (Even if there wasn't an environmental boogey-man chasing the issue, I'd still be for moving away from petroleum based fuels, because we have most of our energy eggs in one basket, and it keeps us in shit holes like the mid-east.)

One thing I find ironic, is how the environmental groups are now embracing nuclear power. That's a good thing from my perspective, but I still find it ironic. Nuclear power is the best way to go in the US if we want to move away from coal and natural gas fired power plants. Doesn't do much for the petroleum we need for cars, trucks, planes and plastics though.

[Ddrak]

Doesn't do much for the petroleum we need for cars, trucks, planes and plastics though.

That's where all the clever stuff with renewable energy storage (ie batteries) comes in. If you can do a quick charge cycle and have cheap and clean power distribution then oil/gas becomes a thing of the past.

The first step in the US would be complete electrification of the rail network - it's actually a pretty easy step too and results in less trucks on roads. If you can combine that with a decent upgrade to the system to make passenger travel fast enough to be a decent competition to airlines then you've got a double-win.

I don't think nukes will replace gas-fired plants. They're more a baseline system that doesn't have rapid response to demand, right?

Dd